Geo-engineering should be developed as insurance against dangerous climate change

Climate changing technologies - such as man-made volcanoes and mirrors in space - should be investigated as an “insurance policy” against catastrophic global warming, claims a leading science body.

By Richard Alleyne, Science CorrespondentPublished: 4:01PM BST 01 Sep 2009
The Royal Society said that while the geo-engineering solutions were not a “silver bullet” and carried their own risks, they could be the only hope of saving the world from disastrous climate change.
A report written by a panel of eminent scientists suggested that the world should start investing around £100 million as a “Plan B” in the event that it fails to reduce carbon emissions before temperatures rise to “very dangerous” levels.
It looked at the feasibility and potential dangers of technologies designed to cool down the earth.
They included such as artificial “trees” that suck carbon dioxide out of the air and man-made volcanoes that spray sulphate particles high in the atmosphere to scatter the sun’s rays back into space.
Mirrors launched into space were also looked at as a way of reflecting the Sun’s heat.
The report by the Royal Society comes as concerns grow that the United Nation’s climate talks in Copenhagen in December will fail to reach agreement.
Even if carbon emission is cut by as much as 50 per cent by 2050, it is unlikely to keep global warming below two degrees this century, a dangerous level.
“We are not advocates of geoengineering,” said John Shepherd, professor of Earth System Science at the National Oceanography Centre in Southampton who chaired the panel of experts.
“But unless the world community can do better we fear that it is likely that we will need to use additional techniques such as geo-engineering to avoid really very dangerous climate change in the future.
“It is proposed as a response to reduce the risk we would otherwise incur due to climate change. An insurance policy or a back up.”
He said the research showed that many of the techniques were deeply flawed and could have serious unintended and detrimental effects on many people and ecosystems.
“None of the geoengineering technologies so far suggested is a magic bullet, and all have risks and uncertainties associated with them,” he said.
“It is essential that we strive to cut emissions now, but we must also face the very real possibility that we will fail. If plan B is to be an option in the future, considerable research and development of the different methods, their environmental impacts and governance issues, must be undertaken now.”
Commenting on a report, Friends of the Earth’s Head of Climate Change Mike Childs said: “Geoengineering is no silver bullet – it won’t solve climate change. The different options will take time to develop, risks need to be properly researched, and if we use geoengineering at all it must be in addition to making deep cuts in the amount of carbon dioxide we produce in the first place."